Skip to comments.March for Life Unveils 'Unique From Day One' Theme Arguing That the Pro-Life Movement Is Pro-Science
Posted on 10/18/2018 3:35:15 PM PDT by Kaslin
click here to read article
I agree! It’s personally quite devastating as the 2 who I think are the most unrepentant are the closest to me (family) - and this inability to truly connect with spirituality is very, very sad. I mourn these lost children, even if they won’t - as I’m sure I’ll see them again!
I see a lack of true faith and selfishness as the very root of this evil.
These women will never see abortion as THEIR fault - they see it as some kind of “them or me” thing where they think they were completely entitled, and justified, to choose themselves. I cannot say that I understand that point of view - but it’s how they get through life, and not just with regards to this issue.
But the 2 slightly repentant women that I know are kind of scarier cases because both are generally pretty good women - one did go on to have 2 kids in addition to her stillborn at 20 weeks - and while drinking and infidelity did plague her for years, she is a good person who always tries to give to others before herself. But she has not asked herself if she has committed murder, or if she needs to somehow atone - although she may have gone through that a little when she lost her baby at 20 weeks.
The media has done a good job of presenting the ridiculous notion that babies are better off DEAD than with an unfit mother, or being adopted out. And that’s certainly something all of these women used to help convince themselves that this was a “good” choice. One of the real crimes is that most girls have heard of Planned Parenthood, and few know that there are pregnancy resource centers that will help you with an unplanned pregnancy.
I read that the majority of abortions are pressured or coerced - I even saw that they should renamed “Woman’s Choice” “Parent’s Choice” or “Guy’s Choice” - which is interesting. There’s no doubt that several of the women I know felt pressure from family or the guy to get an abortion. But in the end, a lack of true faith in God - in his creation, in his love - and in living by his laws - are what led each of them to commit this heinous act (at least 2 of them had multiple as well...)
The left is anti-science.
Whether or not “personhood” has been scientifically defined, what’s the difference between being human and being a person?
Before Roe v. Wade there was never a personhood argument; it was only introduced afterward as a canard to make the decision to have an abortion a little more palatable. The same thing happened with Dred Scott. “He’s not a person,” they claimed, “he’s black. He’s not a person, though he’s a human technically; but that’s just a little detail. It’s not significant.”
For your thoughtful consumption:
“Personhood is not a separate, added quality that gives human beings significance. It is a property that is essential to being human. Humans are personal beings. It’s part of an inseparable package. For example, an essential part of being a sphere is to have volume. A sphere without volume is not a sphere, but a circle. All spheres have volume. In the same way part of what being human entails is being a personal being.”
“Whether or not personhood has been scientifically defined, whats the difference between being human and being a person?”
Your kidney is “human”, but it isn’t a human *being*. You can’t murder a kidney. At some point in development, be it conception or birth, somewhere in between or somewhere afterward, we become members of the human community, with “inalienable rights”. I can’t imagine how that can be exclusively a scientific question.
Personhood is not a separate, added quality that gives human beings significance.”
That argument is somewhat tautological. In this context “person” and “human being” are two terms for exactly the same thing. So what have you proven? The important question is when, exactly, does a human egg become a human being? Is it when it becomes “viable”? When it’s “inevitable”? When it’s capable of free will? When it looks like a person? When it looks too cute to harm?
According to US law, when most of the head of a developing human “something” is outside of its mother’s body, it suddenly, mystically, becomes a human being, endowed with full human rights. This arbitrary and quasi-religious definition is sanctified as “settled law”. That’s sure to cause bitter problems, and it does.
All of that is why this push to recognize that one becomes a human being at conception is most scientifically and logically sensible. Other reference points along the development curve are too arbitrary in nature to even BE “points” at all, and the “magic birth canal” argument currently codified in Law is simply ridiculous on its face. The notion that one transitions from “not a human being” to “a human being”; from “having no rights” to “having rights” by passing through a tube — utterly stupid.
On that score, I would suppose that passing Eastward through the tunnel beneath the English Channel might make me a Frenchman endowed with all the legal trappings of a citizen of that country. It’s simply a preposterous idea.
No, FAR better to establish a definable, recognizable, testable, instant in time where one actually can be legitimately construed as having BECOME a “human being”; and the moment when all the necessary DNA that makes you you is first brought together is the only moment that meets those criteria, and that is conception.
Now too, as you point out, “person” and “human being” are two terms for exactly the same thing in context to speaking of the personhood of human beings; that one is a “person” is inherent in that one is a “human being.” So, when the egg becomes a human being is also when the egg becomes a person endowed by [his] Creator with certain inalienable rights; life chief among them. And science is unequivocal in asserting that the egg becomes a human being at conception, as that is the earliest definable instant where all of the requisite DNA is present together.
“All of that is why this push to recognize that one becomes a human being at conception is most scientifically and logically sensible.”
I think you make an interesting point if you add that it is *legally* sensible, a clearly definable milestone, before which (nearly) everyone would agree there was not a human being, and after which there is a moral danger that killing would amount to murder.
Still, is it a “self-evident truth” that a fertilized egg is a human being, and to kill it is murder? That still seems to me to be a matter to be argued or a matter of faith, not something immediately self-evident.
Let’s say that fertilized egg divides a few times, and then splits into twins, a non-hereditary phenomenon. Was it always two people, or did the moment of “conception” in that case begin with the splitting? If you chemically thwarted the blastocyst from splitting, did you “murder” one of the two twins? Which one? Reasoning of that sort leads me to think of a fertilized egg as a “potential person” rather than a full fledged “person”.
I don’t mean to be argumentative; we seem to be very nearly on the same page. Ultimately, though, I don’t think appeals to logic or science are going to settle the argument about abortion. I think what will win the argument in the end will be appeals to the heart, not the head.
You are unfortunately correct.
The Catholic brand has been ruined in light of the widespread sexual abuse of thousands of innocent children by thousands of pedophile priests worldwide fully supported by Vatican hierarchy.
To attone Catholics should support the prolife movement, no doubt.
However, Catholics would do well to not reveal their affiliation with Vatican’s criminality in order to protect the real good that Prolife supporters intends.
RE: “We go to the March but I believe all the Catholic imagery dilutes the message and turns off non Catholics”
“I dont mean to be argumentative; we seem to be very nearly on the same page.”
Yes, I think so.
“Ultimately, though, I dont think appeals to logic or science are going to settle the argument about abortion.”
That is certainly the case if people do not think carefully about the issue, and consider it from several angles, as we have been.
“I think what will win the argument in the end will be appeals to the heart, not the head.”
Well, it is true that emotional appeals are compelling. God knows the left has been relying on them heavily in a near-vacuum of supporting facts. My thinking is that the most successful argument will target BOTH, linking an emotional appeal to the heart with supporting facts for the head to chew on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.